Aubrey Sarvis

A Quiet Hero Leaves the Pentagon

2013-01-03T14:31:30-05:00

Pentagon lawyers are seldom appreciated. And the good ones are rarely on stage or near the spotlight. Certainly that was the case on December 18, 2010, when the Senate and House, in dramatic fashion during a lame duck session, passed legislation that would end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) ban on gay soldiers in the military. There were kudos and cheering for President Obama, Senators Reid and Levin, Lieberman and Collins. There were toasts for then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for Congressmen Patrick Murphy, Steny Hoyer and others in that body, and smart salutes for then Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All well deserved.

But Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's top civilian lawyer, who was appointed by President Obama and who served as Secretary Gates' General Counsel, was not on Capitol Hill that cold December day. He was across the Potomac, quietly following the Senate vote in the Pentagon with his cadre of lawyers. Johnson's preparations and hard work had been done, his vote counting and Congressional testimony and numerous hearings wrapped up. The exhaustive 10-month study he had conducted with Army General Carter Ham had been completed and delivered to Congress. Notwithstanding some pending legal challenges in various courts, the president, the Defense Secretary and the JCS Chairman would soon certify to Congress that repeal would have no adverse impact. Finally the law banning gay people from serving their country would be a thing of the past.

Before that could happen, though, it took a trusted broker like Jeh Johnson to balance all the contending factors in the Pentagon and Congress and keep the key players talking. At critical times in 2009 and 2010, as Johnson shuffled between lawyers and political operatives in the White House and staffers on Capitol Hill and back to the Pentagon, reviewing legislative language and hearing concerns at the highest levels, the outcome sometimes looked bleak. But the key operatives trusted Jeh Johnson and knew his word was good, and they kept at it. An anxious White House understood they were putting the president's commitment to repeal largely in Johnson's hands, and Gates' and Mullen's as well. When Johnson explained that the courts were trending towards equality and what that might mean for the Pentagon and its policy on gay people in the ranks, Secretary Gates clearly understood.

Gates tapped Johnson to co-chair the Pentagon Working Group to engage the force on the question at hand; Mullen quickly picked Carter Ham for the other chair. As Gates testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, "We have our marching orders from the president." Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but Gates took solace in knowing that Johnson would ensure the results were fair, that the troops would have a real voice in the decision

Unlike Admiral Mullen, who clearly embraced the process, Gates wasn't that eager to engage in repeal of DADT. "Let's push that one down the road a little bit," he told Fox News. But the last thing he wanted was the courts to determine the outcome. He didn't want the Judiciary giving orders to his Pentagon and his troops. Gates would be a good solider, largely because he had faith in Jeh Johnson as an honest broker. Now he agreed with Johnson and the White House on a process that would give the Pentagon a huge voice in the final outcome. (Gates would quietly depart the Pentagon and leave the final repeal certification up to Secretary Panetta.)

In early 2009, when Jeh Johnson's appointment was announced, I didn't know where he would stand on repeal of DADT. But once I learned that Johnson's hero was a lawyer named Jack Greenberg, I was optimistic. In 1949 Jack Greenberg was the only white lawyer named to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and in 1961 Greenberg succeeded Thurgood Marshall as Director General at the NAACP. Greenberg, a law professor at Columbia University who is still practicing, has devoted his life and work to justice and fairness. Greenberg argued Brown v. Board of Education with Thurgood Marshall. If Jeh Johnson's hero was Jack Greenberg, that was good enough for me.

Despite all the problems the Pentagon faced -- drones, detainees, military tribunals, Guantanamo Bay and procurement, just to name a few -- some believe that Jeh Johnson and Admiral Mullen will be remembered most for the steady-as-you-go way they led our armed forces in ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. President Obama, our armed forces, and our country were well served by Jeh Johnson. Jack Greenberg must be very proud of his student.

SLDN to Panetta: The Time Is Now for Concrete Action

2012-07-23T11:22:32-04:00

A year ago yesterday, President Obama, Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta certified that the United States military was ready to implement the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). It was a momentous occasion, and a genuine example of strong vision and determined leadership bringing about real change. While everyone acknowledged there was more work to be done in order to successfully implement the repeal, it was a day of celebration.

Yet, despite an historic LGBT Pride event at the Pentagon in June, there has been woefully little
concrete action from the Department of Defense in the past year to ensure a lasting successful implementation of repeal. SLDN has written to Secretary Panetta several times urging the extension of benefits where he has the authority to do so. Senior members of the Secretary's staff -- both civilian and military -- have been actively reviewing this issue for months. In fact, at their invitation, we brought service members and their spouses to the Pentagon to meet with the review team to discuss these benefits.

A year is more than enough time to make a decision, and we are puzzled that no action has been taken. The successful implementation of repeal requires that all can serve free from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation. But it also requires equal support and benefits for gay and lesbian service members and their families. Without equal support and benefits, the United States military has two classes of service members: both providing the same service and demonstrating the same commitment to defending this country, but with one asked to make additional and unnecessary sacrifices to do so.

Committed and strong leadership from the Pentagon was one of the key components of winning
the repeal of DADT. Likewise, it will require the same determination and leadership to ensure its
successful implementation. At SLDN, we urge Secretary Panetta to exercise his authority without further delay to extend benefits where he can to the families of gay and lesbian service members.

A Bad Call in Richmond

2012-05-16T12:44:21-04:00

Just a week after we celebrated the president's announcement of his support for marriage equality -- and his recognition of the sacrifices of brave gay and lesbian service members among his reasons for doing so -- we have been reminded that when it comes to honoring the diversity that has helped build this nation, we still have a ways to go.

Twenty years ago, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) led the charge, along with Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), to keep gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces. In fact, Warner joined Nunn in belittling the service and sacrifice of gay patriots like Tracy Thorne-Begland, a Navy fighter pilot who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1992 against the discriminatory policy that Warner was advocating. Mr. Thorne-Begland was right back then to challenge the policy that the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted, and eventually Congress and our country came to agree with him.

In December 2010, the new Warner in the Senate, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), along with Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), voted with 63 of their colleagues, including eight Republicans, to repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) ban. Clearly our country has moved away from this shameful policy against gay and lesbian troops who were fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, some of whom are buried today in Arlington cemetery and in other national cemeteries around the country.

But sadly, some of the good old boys in the Virginia General Assembly have not moved on, and once again, Mr. Thorne-Begland finds himself in the middle of controversy as opponents of our progress cling to the past and attempt to make him pay a price for his advocacy of equality. As the Washington Post pointed out yesterday in its coverage of the ugly and mean-spirited vote in Richmond against Mr. Thorne-Begland, you can be a gun-rights activist in the old Dominion and get a judgeship in Virginia, but you can't be a gay rights advocate and get approved by the the same assembly in Richmond.

Virginia is much better than the 31 members of its Assembly, who voted against this good and qualified man. Virginia, like the rest of the country, supports all of its troops, including the gay and lesbian ones. Mr. Thorne-Begland was wronged by his country when he was kicked out of the Navy that he loved solely because of his sexual orientation.

So, it was especially heartbreaking this week to see this good man wronged once again, because he stood up 20 years ago in Washington for equality. This seasoned, professional prosecutor is far more qualified to be on the Fourth Circuit federal bench in Richmond or be appointed as the next U.S. Attorney for Virginia than to sit on the relatively minor court to which he has been rejected.

But what's perhaps more amazing than the injustice visited on Mr. Thorne-Begland, is that a man of his talents would agree to serve in this capacity. Talk about being overly qualified, but it just goes to show that he is a man of integrity, who simply wants to serve. If the gang of 31 in Richmond will not revisit their vote next year, President Obama should seriously consider Mr. Thorne-Begland for a federal judicial post, where he can better use his considerable talents.

But, first, let's hope the good people of Virginia, including its major employers, will let the gang of 31 know that their vote is not representative of the great Commonwealth. I have no doubt Mr. Thorne-Belgand would serve with much distinction if given the opportunity to. It's not too late to right this mean-spirited wrong.

Obama, Service Members and Marriage Equality

2012-05-11T17:20:34-04:00

When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage... it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

-- President Barack Obama, May 9, 2012

It was indeed an historic moment Wednesday when President Obama linked the freedom for all to serve with the freedom for all to marry, whatever their gender, whatever their orientation. Although proponents of marriage equality are in an increasing majority, it took more than moral conviction for the president to make that heartfelt statement; considering the polarized state of the nation today and the clamor of the opposition, it took political courage.

Consider that North Carolina on Tuesday voted by a 21 percent margin for a constitutional amendment that would ban not only same sex couples from marrying but also ban all civil unions and domestic partnerships, same sex or opposite sex. Its ramifications would extend to cases of domestic violence and child custody, end of life issues, and more. What makes it even more absurd is that gay marriage is already illegal in North Carolina. But I guess you can't be too careful.

The situation as it stands in our country today is untenable. In North Carolina, two gay soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg who want to get married and commit themselves to each other are unable to do so.

Yet the same two soldiers, should they be transferred to Fort Drum in New York State, could marry and have that marriage recognized by the state. Unfortunately, though legally married in New York, their marriage will still not be recognized by the Pentagon nor will they receive the same benefits other married military couples receive. Why not? Because the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits it.

Without the president's extraordinary leadership, there would have been no repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). Working for repeal allowed the president to get to know more of our gay and lesbian service members and their families, to hear their stories and the challenges they faced and still face. They helped persuade the president that it was time to bring about the end of DADT.

Today, the president, his Attorney General, and Secretary of Defense are fully aware of the constitutional case that SLDN has brought on behalf of several legally married service members and veterans. We are fighting in court to overturn DOMA and assure that gay and lesbian married military couples receive the same benefits from the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs that their married straight comrades take for granted.

Wednesday, the President connected the dots between repeal of DADT and marriage equality, underscoring the impact of gay and lesbian service members in the ongoing marriage equality debate.

Those gay and lesbian service members whose stories the president heard, who were discriminated against and kicked out of their jobs because of their sexual orientation, will be heard and seen again in the debate on Capitol Hill and in the courts as the fight for marriage equality escalates.

I fail to see how we can embrace and thank these patriots for their military service and sacrifice and yet deny them the fundamental right to marry the person they love. I think the president doesn't see it either.

It's Time to Honor All Military Families

2012-04-11T16:33:52-04:00

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is thankful to the Huffington Post Media Group for its commitment to America's military families and for proclaiming this its second annual Military Families Week. It coincides with the first anniversary of Joining Forces, the program launched by First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden, to demonstrate our nation's commitment to these families who sacrifice so much for all of us. In fact, SLDN's Government Affairs director, Jeremy Wilson-Simerman, was at the White House today for a celebration commemorating the anniversary, and had the opportunity to speak directly to the First Lady about our work on behalf of LGBT service members, veterans and their families. Indeed, the White House -- and specifically, the First Lady -- have done a great deal since the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) to reach out to LGBT service members and include them and their families in their efforts to recognize their contributions to our country.

Unfortunately, there's only so much the White House -- or anyone for that matter -- can do for these families so long as discriminatory laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are on the books. That's why SLDN filed landmark litigation in October 2011 on behalf of eight married gay and lesbian service members and veterans, who are seeking the same recognition, support, and benefits for their families that are provided to all other military families. DOMA, as well as three other federal statutes -- Titles 10, 32, and 38, currently preclude the military from providing equal benefits to all families.

Perhaps no one feels the sting of this inequality more than one of the plaintiffs in the case, Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan of the New Hampshire National Guard. CW2 Morgan has served her country for more than 17 years and recently returned from a deployment to the Middle East. She is married to Karen, a part-time special education teacher, and they have a five-year-old daughter, Casey Elena. Sadly, CW2 Morgan was recently diagnosed with incurable stage IV breast cancer, and Karen had to quit work to take care of their daughter while CW2 Morgan undergoes treatment for her illness. Because the military isn't allowed to recognize Karen as CW2 Morgan's wife, she receives no health insurance, is not allowed unaccompanied on base, and will not receive the same survivor's benefits that would flow to a straight spouse if Charlie doesn't win her brave fight. Nothing could be more heartbreaking or frankly, un-American, than treating these brave gay and lesbian patriots as second-class citizens.

But SLDN is not just fighting for these families in the courts. Just as we did during the fight to repeal DADT, we are also taking the fight to Capitol Hill. We are lobbying to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, and we are working day and night to educate members of Congress and their staffs about the harm that these unjust laws do to military families.

Repeal of DADT was a monumental achievement, but it did not level the playing field for gay and lesbian service members, veterans, and their families. It's time to end these discriminatory laws, finish the job, and honor all military families.

There Can Be No Second-Class Service Members

2012-03-20T09:38:31-04:00

Today, we mark six months since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) was repealed, and the news is good. Service members of every branch and every rank -- along with the nation's military leaders -- are to be congratulated for the professionalism with which implementation is taking place. Indeed, the dire warnings of opponents have not come to pass -- just as we knew they wouldn't. Repeal has not resulted in any comprising of unit cohesion, mass exodus from the services, or damage to the morale of the nation's fighting men and women.

So what has brought about this success?

Let's first remember that Congress passed a law establishing a process whereby DADT would go away if -- that is, if -- the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the President all certified to Congress that the services were ready to make this change. There was nothing in the law that required certification to ever occur, and before certifying, our nation's leaders took all necessary steps to ensure that our military would be ready.

Even before repeal enabling legislation was signed by President Obama in December 2011, these preparations and contingent plans were underway. From the unprecedented engagement of the force in the form of the meetings conducted in the field to discuss the proposed changes with service members to the largest non-census survey of the nation's military in our history, planning was in place to ensure that repeal -- if it happened -- would occur in an environment that would foster its success. Extensive education and engagement of the forces occurred before certification, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen and then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- even though they were not required to do so by law -- consulted with all the service chiefs before recommending that repeal proceed.

That time in the field face to face with service members -- coupled with the survey, education, and training -- all came together to solidify the view of the military leadership, as well as the rank and file, that repeal could occur without disruption to the mission of the armed forces. Ultimately, it was the decision of the services to move away from DADT and write, issue, and implement a new set of regulations that now permit gays and lesbians to serve openly if they choose to do so.

But even as we herald the success we see, we know that implementation cannot be entirely successful as long as we have two classes of service members. Perhaps President Obama himself said it best when speaking to supporters recently about the repeal of DADT. He stated:

We're going to have more work to do on this issue, as is true on a lot of other issues. There's still areas where fairness is not the rule.

That's why in October 2011 -- just a month after repeal -- SLDN filed landmark litigation to address these remaining issues. McLaughlin v. U.S. was brought by eight married gay and lesbian service members and veterans challenging the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and other federal statutes that preclude the military from providing equal recognition, support, and benefits to all families. These plaintiffs take the same risks, make the same sacrifices, and provide the same service, yet when it comes to benefits like housing, health care, survivor benefits, and family support, they are not treated the same as their straight, married peers.

However, there are a number of benefits that the Secretary of Defense has the authority to confer right now, even as DOMA and these other laws remain on the books. SLDN has been working for a number of months with the Pentagon to address these, and we should see something positive on this front before the end of March. The reality is DoD started looking at benefits long before repeal took place, including in the findings made by the Comprehensive Review Working Group. It's past time that the Secretary act on this front, and at this six-month mark, it would be entirely appropriate to do so.

So where does this leave us?

We can say with certainty that repeal is going well. We also can say with equal certainty that the issue of benefit parity is gaining steam. Commanders in the field are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with a two-tiered system of benefits and support for service members and their families. The colleagues of gay and lesbian military families are recognizing the inequalities and inherent unfairness of the status quo. Members of Congress are hearing from their constituents that it's time to address this next battle in the fight for full equality.

It's time to repeal DOMA and change these discriminatory laws. We cannot be a nation with two classes of service members.

Connecting the Dots

2012-02-14T11:15:04-05:00

During Black History Month, we gaze on the fading photographs and videos from the '50s and '60s as if we were looking at life on another planet, something so far from our reality today that it's hard to imagine: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Malcolm X in the old Madison Square Garden, the exuberantly rhyming Mohammad Ali, and the unforgettable sight of nine brave African-American teenagers entering Central High School in Little Rock under the protection of armed federal troops and the newly nationalized Arkansas National Guard.

These students, civil rights leaders, and people of all races who saw the difference between justice and injustice, between American ideals and American reality, brought an end to an American society that is almost unrecognizable to us now. For people under 40, it is something they read about in history books; they have no memory of that time. They cannot remember, let alone imagine, that there was an ugly time in this country when African Americans were confined to the back of the bus, where the races had separate drinking fountains and were prohibited by law and custom from sitting at the same lunch counters in the South.

But the old photographs, television clips, and history books today bear witness. The evidence is all over the Web, on YouTube, and on Wikipedia, and students now the ages of the Little Rock Nine learn about those events in their own textbooks. Those visionaries and the events they brought to pass changed our country forever.

President Obama has repeatedly acknowledged his debt to that generation of civil rights leaders and demonstrators who kept their eyes on the goal in the face of demeaning and sometimes brutal treatment. He knows that but for them, he would not be in the White House today.

Likewise, Jeh Johnson, the president's top lawyer at the Defense Department, isn't shy about acknowledging his debt to the heroic black leaders of the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson years. Last week Mr. Johnson noted, "But for Dr. King, Little Rock, and the sacrifices of those who sat at lunch counters and on city buses, I would not hold this position today, nor would other doors and opportunities be open to me."

The president and Mr. Johnson make clear their debt to the past. Likewise, the future will stand on their courage and that of a handful of key policy makers responsible for repealing the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) law. President Obama and Mr. Johnson belong at the top of that list, as does Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. They well know that repeal would never have happened without the struggles of previous generations, who fought to end racial segregation in our military, and who continued to fight to admit women to the service academies and to military occupations that were previously closed to them.

Obama, Mullen, and Johnson understood that repeal of DADT was necessary to make our military stronger and ensure that the services reflect the values of our country. They also knew that it didn't happen in a vacuum. Successful congressional and executive action came about only after decades of hard work, sacrifice, and blood.

I wonder, though, if some of us in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, including Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, always make the same connections. Do we draw the dots back to those long, lonely, and sometimes bloody civil rights battles on which we stand? Does the LGBT community fully appreciate the shoulders we stand on today as the fight continues for full LGBT equality in the military, the right to marry, and the end to employment discrimination?

Ending DADT came about because LGBT service members, veterans, their families, and supporters pushed back and fought -- and never gave up. But repeal can also be traced directly back to those extraordinary civil rights leaders who bravely fought discrimination and second-class citizenship.

It's important to keep drawing these dots and making these connections. Let us not forget to remember.

What a Difference a Year Makes, But We're Not There Yet

2011-12-20T09:20:30-05:00

Last week Congress passed its annual National Defense Authorization Act with much controversy about detainees. In the wake of that heated debate, however, less attention was paid to several harmful provisions in the House version of the bill aimed at the implementation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) repeal, as well as religious freedom for chaplains, access to military facilities, and whether to restate the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for the military.

In the end, cooler heads prevailed, and the only amendment related to any of these issues came from the Senate, where a more rational and balanced approach to the religious freedom to chaplains carried the day. As they have always been, chaplains remain free to marry whomever they choose, based on the tenets of their own faith.

But this victory did not come without a fight. This week we mark the one-year anniversary since President Obama signed legislation enabling the repeal of DADT, and in that year, supporters of LGBT equality have been forced to defend the progress we've made at every step. Even as our nation's senior military leadership went to Capitol Hill to testify that training and repeal were proceeding smoothly; even as the president, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were certifying that the military was ready for repeal; and even as repeal took effect and has proceeded without incident since September, it has been against a backdrop of rhetoric and attacks from would-be presidents, right-wing special interest groups like the Family Research Council and Center for Military Readiness, and a few members of Congress stuck in the past.

So, what is it that these defenders of the gay military ban want? They want to turn the clock back on the progress we've made, and in the absence of their ability to do that, they want to make gay and lesbian service members second-class citizens. They want to take away the right of chaplains to marry same-gender couples -- even in states that allow it, and regardless of whether or not it takes place on a military post. They want to prevent them from using the same military facilities that all other couples are able to use. And they want to keep service members who are legally married from receiving the same recognition, family support, and benefits as their straight, married peers.

That's why at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, along with the law firm Chadbourne & Parke, we have filed landmark litigation on behalf of eight gay and lesbian married service members and veterans, who are seeking the same treatment that all other service members receive for their families. Together, we are challenging DOMA and three sections of U.S. Code that relate to military benefits for families of service members and veterans. And make no mistake, these military families are not asking for special treatment, as some have charged. They're simply seeking fairness and equality -- and for their country to recognize them for taking the same risks, providing the same service, and making the same sacrifices as all other families.

So as we pass this one-year milestone since the president signed the repeal bill, we celebrate the more than 66,000 gay and lesbian patriots serving in our military today, as well as tens of thousands who came before them and were forced to serve in silence or be kicked out. We pay tribute to allies who have emerged, like Marine Commandant James Amos, who recently stated -- in a reversal from his 2010 testimony on Capitol Hill -- that he saw no issues with the implementation of repeal of the the law. We look forward to continuing cooperation with the Pentagon and other decision makers as we move into this new era.

But we also wait. We wait for the Department of Justice to tell us whether or not it will defend DOMA in our case. If not, will Speaker Boehner's high-priced DOMA counsel take up that mantle and fight against these military families and others like them, who are on the front lines protecting our security and stability as a nation?

What a difference a year makes. But when it comes to achieving full equality in America's military for every qualified patriot who serves -- regardless of sexual orientation -- we are not there yet.

Obama's Measured Path to DADT Repeal

2011-09-20T00:01:45-04:00

No single individual or organization brought about the tremendous feat of dismantling "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). In the best military tradition, repeal was a team accomplishment. As we celebrate this historic milestone, it's important to pause and consider the critical roles that so many played and remember that it took a remarkable campaign to pull this off and that the road to repeal was not always a smooth one - especially for President Obama.

When pushed on the issue of DADT in the spring of 2009, one of President Obama's senior aides bluntly told me, "You don't have the votes for repeal." Then, after months of careful deliberations and pressure from a wide range of interests, the President's team embarked upon a path that would make it extraordinarily difficult to get a successful repeal vote in 2010. They had solid reasons for the plan they decided on with the top military leadership, but I did not agree with their timeline.

Initially, the President did not call for Congress to repeal DADT outright as many of us had hoped; he didn't order the military to stop enforcing the law under emergency "stop-loss" powers; and he didn't want the courts to order the military to undo DADT. What he eventually proposed was far more ambitious and time consuming.

His two-pronged approach called, first, for Congress to pass a repeal process bill that would allow DADT to be killed; second, he wanted the military to literally pull the plug on DADT and bury it. The President would give then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen the time they wanted to complete their mission. His was a high wire act with no safety net, and, many thought, with little chance of success in 2010, especially in a lame duck session of Congress. Failure would signal an inept White House and a major setback for repeal.

But the President got some help along the way from his friends in accelerating White House action, even when his team didn't necessarily welcome all of it.

Three impatient U.S. senators had become frustrated, afraid repeal might stall. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) grabbed on to repeal in 2009 and never let go. She joined forces with Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Democratic Leader, and Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) to accelerate repeal.

And in the House, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), along with Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and then Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA), would pull together 192 House cosponsors for repeal. Their support, coupled with the loud and growing repeal forces, advocates, and LGBT bloggers, kept repeal alive when it looked bleak or on life support.

Jeh Johnson, DOD's General Counsel and President Obama's first appointee to the Pentagon, was the vital link for the White House and the Pentagon on repeal. Gates and Mullen and the cautious Johnson ensured the Obama team would be prepared for the Levin hearings. These three, along with scores of their Pentagon colleagues, had been preparing for months. It had fallen to the low key, dapper Johnson to be the bridge and honest broker between the White House and Pentagon on repeal. At the White House, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and a cadre of White House lawyers, labored with Johnson to orchestrate their forces to bring final closure.

It took nearly a year for the President's plan to jell. And it would be another painful year before the winning votes on Capitol Hill. And after that, another seven months would pass before Jeh Johnson would hand-deliver the signed Gates and Mullen certification to the White House for the President's signature and transmitted to Capitol Hill. All in all, not that long for a successful legislative and military operation, but inordinately protracted for advocates and especially long for gay and lesbian service members being discharged every day under DADT and for those serving in silence.

And make no mistake. The President directed his forces with precision, methodically insisting all options be examined and re-examined. He realized almost from the beginning that success would depend upon the military, that he would need Gates and Mullen and his senior commanders and the troops with him to bring about this change. And he also knew that would take time. He was determined not to be rushed. The last time this was rushed without a plan and military support the results had been disastrous. He would not make that mistake.

On February 2, 2010, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen stunned Capitol Hill by outlining before the Senate Armed Services Committee precisely what the President had tasked them to do. On that day, most knew repeal would happen. It was not a matter of if - it was just a matter of when and how. That turned out to be the final days of the lame duck session of Congress in 2010 when Senators Susan Collins (R-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Reid, along with Pelosi and Hoyer, pushed a standalone repeal bill over the finish line.

Some will rightly quibble over how long it took Obama's White House to pull off this remarkable achievement and who should get credit for what, but one thing few can argue is that repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would not have happened without a determined President Obama, the essential and unwavering buy-in and support from our military, and an awful lot of very good luck.

Someone Should Tell Bachmann: Our Military Leaders Ended DADT

2011-08-16T18:14:32-04:00

Last week, as I watched the presidential debate in Iowa, I listened closely for a question or an answer that referenced the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT) signed into law by President Obama last December and now scheduled to be final on September 20, 2011. After all, it was just a few weeks ago in New Hampshire that every candidate participating in the previous debate -- with the notable exception of Congressman Ron Paul, who voted for repeal -- voiced support for the discredited and discriminatory law and left the door wide open for reinstating it should they be elected president.

So, I was heartened as the debate came to a close and the issue had not been raised. I thought, "Finally. These candidates realize that this debate is over. Our nation's military leaders, Congress, and the president have spoken. They, like most Americans, believe that all qualified Americans should be able to serve the country they love. We've moved on."

Then on Saturday, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, in an interview with CNN, reiterated her opposition to repeal and went farther than she previously had, stating she "probably would" reinstate DADT if elected. Immediately, I began receiving emails asking the question, "Could she do such a thing?" Indeed, the answer is yes, and today, the New York Times explained exactly how she -- or any would-be president who opposes LGB service in our military -- could.

But the better and more important question is, why would she? Is it because she wants to appeal to a small base of supporters who do not represent the vast majority of the American people? Is it because she does not respect the recommendations of our nation's senior military leaders, including two Secretaries of Defense, one of whom is the recently retired Republican-appointed Robert Gates who served under a number of presidents? Is it because she doesn't understand that this is not the way we conduct military policymaking in the United States?

Here are the facts.

In virtually any poll, the American people overwhelmingly support the open and honest service of qualified gay and lesbian patriots in our military. They know, as conservative Republican Barry Goldwater so eloquently said, that you don't have to be straight to shoot straight.

Indeed, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year, our nation's service chiefs reflected this view as they testified to Congress that there were no significant challenges during the ongoing training and preparation for implementation. The president, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, further reinforced this finding when they issued their certification to Congress last month, sending a clear and final message that our military is ready for repeal. And in this country, we don't revisit major personnel policy decisions for our military based on which party wins an election every four years.

In a few weeks, DADT will be history. Now is not the time for Congresswoman Bachmann or other candidates to be second-guessing our military leaders, attempting to create uncertainty or unrest in the ranks, and shamelessly using our troops in order to score a few political points.

This is the time to rally around our troops, support the sacrifice and service of all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, and move on. Certainly, we have more real and relevant battles to fight than to revisit one that has already been settled.

End the Confusion: Certify "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Now

2011-07-07T16:36:20-04:00

Yesterday, as we crossed the 196th day since President Obama signed legislation to initiate the process that will end the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) law, supporters of repeal were pleased to hear news of a decision coming out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, this decision by the court to prohibit the Pentagon from enforcing the DADT law has also caused new and unnecessary confusion as this protracted process continues to languish without final resolution.

Make no mistake. At the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, we welcome this positive step, and we encourage the White House, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice not to seek an appeal of this ruling. But the truth is that the confusion caused by this latest court ruling over the enforcement of DADT could have been ended months ago if the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff had certified in a timely way. Now, as the process drags on, we are looking at the likelihood that it will have taken nearly a year since the president signed the repeal bill.

Some have asked why this even matters now that we have this new court ruling. The answer is simple. Though enforcement has been stopped for the time being, DADT is still the law of the land as long as certification and the subsequent 60-day waiting period required in the law have not taken place. If the government appeals this order and is successful, service members could be investigated and discharged once again. At SLDN, we represent clients right now, who are under investigation and could be discharged if this decision were to be reversed. Careers are at stake; livelihoods are on the line.

Meanwhile, opponents on Capitol Hill -- as late as yesterday -- were crafting and putting forth schemes to ambush repeal. New amendments were proposed to the House Defense Appropriations bill for 2012 that would bar federal funding for marriages or civil unions that do not comply with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); prohibit the use of military installations and military personnel for such ceremonies; prohibit federal funding from being used in contravention of DOMA; and even ban federal funding for DADT repeal training for service members in combat. Supporting these efforts behind the scenes are organizations like the Center for Military Readiness, which claims to be concerned only with ensuring a strong and ready military for our nation, but in fact, is simply using our service members to justify their continued existence and the promotion of a religious, social agenda.

So, how can we stop all this nonsense and confusion? Again, the answer is clear. It's time for President Obama, Secretary Leon Panetta, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, to certify the repeal of DADT -- and in days, not weeks. Only then will we end confusion for all service members, gay and straight, and close the books on this discriminatory chapter in American history.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Under Attack

2011-04-11T17:18:57-04:00

If Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), was hoping that the nation's top military leaders would give him fresh ammunition in his fight to delay, defund or derail implementing repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT)... well, the chairman and the other members of the new majority on his committee must have been sorely disappointed by the testimony they heard last Thursday. The service chiefs testified that their services were moving smoothly toward repeal, with no significant problems.

But what last week's hearing -- and the military personnel subcommittee's hearing just a week earlier -- underscored is that the clear majority of the new majority on the HASC would like nothing more than to turn back the clock on repeal. Indeed, members like Allen West (R-FL), Austin Scott (R-GA), Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) and Steven Palazzo (R-MS), though misinformed about the law, seem determined nonetheless to advance the denial of full equality for all service members. And for all we know, that goal may well be shared by the majority in the House today.

Sadly, they're getting their talking points from organizations like the Heritage Foundation, which last week released a report, "A Clash of Integrities: Moral and Religious Liberty in the Armed Forces," written by longtime opponent of open service, Charles A. Donovan, who has recently reinvented himself as a military expert at the Heritage Foundation. In fact, Donovan has never served in the military and demonstrates no understanding of the most basic aspects of how our military works, how commands are structured, or even the chain of command. His specious arguments, hinged largely on freedom of speech and religion, were ably refuted by Brigadier General John Adams (USA ret.), a veteran of more than 30 years service. To view his rebuttal, go here.

All of this demonstrates that opponents of open service are circling the wagons, and we must acknowledge that repeal is under attack and must be defended. Yes, repeal was signed into law last December by the President, but until certification takes place and repeal is implemented, the existing law remains in place. As a result, investigations continue and service members remain in danger of being discharged. At Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), we maintain no less than 100 open cases.

Meanwhile, opponents of repeal are looking to make mischief at every turn. Already, three likely presidential candidates have called for repealing the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." They and other would-be presidents will take the stage in Greenville, SC, on May 5 for the first televised debate of the 2012 election cycle, and you can expect this issue to be addressed. Back in Congress, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees will begin marking up the 2012 Defense Authorization legislation, and this will offer yet another opportunity as opponents seek to derail, defund, or delay repeal.

For all these reasons and more, SLDN has called on the armed services to accelerate the timeline for training for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, so that certification may take place and repeal be implemented in the second quarter of this year. Only then, when open military service is proceeding smoothly, will opponents of repeal let up. But do not be mistaken; they are not going away. I fear it will be some time before repeal of DADT is truly out of harm's way. Just one election could give opponents of repeal a majority in the Senate and in the White House. We must remain vigilant -- and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will remain on the frontlines -- to ensure that this discriminatory law is never placed back on our books and that backdoor attempts to undermine repeal are never successful.

We also know that just successfully enacting repeal does not finish the job. The job is not done until legally married service members receive the same benefits and family support as their straight married comrades. Fair and equal treatment under the law has not been accomplished as long as federal statutes prevent pay parity. Ultimately, our work is done only when lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender service members, willing to serve and fight and die for this country, are treated equally under the law. That day has not yet arrived.

This fact is further underscored by this week's announcement by the White House that First Lady Michelle Obama will launch a new initiative to support military families. Though repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law has not yet taken place, we welcome Mrs. Obama's -- and the President's -- support for ending this discriminatory law that has been rejected by the American people. The First Lady, President Obama, and the service chiefs all recognize that gay and lesbian service members are serving today, and that they have families who should be recognized. (To view the SLDN statement, go here.)

We look forward to that day, and we hope it will come sooner, rather than later. And until that day comes, we will keep fighting.

Aubrey Sarvis is an Army Veteran and Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Standing up for Joe Lieberman

2011-01-22T15:41:00-05:00

Now that Senator Lieberman has announced he will not seek another term for the Senate, many pundits took Alice Roosevelt Longworth's witticism to heart: "If you can't say anything good about someone, sit right here by me."

I'm not going there. I've got something good to say about the former Democrat, now Independent from Connecticut.

For many, gay and straight, asking Joe Lieberman to be the Senate lead in repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" seemed an odd choice. And frankly, some Servicemembers Legal Defense Network supporters initially were skeptical of the choice. They didn't entirely trust Lieberman. But there was one senator who, from the get go, never had any doubt that Joe Lieberman should and would be a critical player in any successful fight on the Hill to repeal DADT. That senator was Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy was known for his tenacious ability to make strategic alliances and court the right partners to win tough fights on Capitol Hill. He was our original and obvious choice to lead the Don't Ask fight in the Senate, but he and his staff were adamant about introducing a repeal bill only when it had bi-partisan support.

Ted Kennedy wanted Lieberman on the train for a host of good reasons. He knew that Lieberman had the respect of the most senior leadership at the Pentagon, especially Secretary Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint chiefs. Kennedy knew their support would be critical if repeal were ever to pass. Kennedy also knew how important it was to keep the lines of communication open, how important it was to build bridges with senators on the other side of the aisle -- and he knew that Lieberman knew that, too.

Kennedy proved to be right. After he became seriously ill and it was obvious he was unable to be our Senate lead, it was Joe Lieberman who agreed to pick up the Kennedy mantle so we could move forward.

Senator Lieberman was in constant touch with Gates and Mullen during the debate and hearings. I have no doubt he was instrumental in Carl Levin's (D- Mich.) decision to sign on as an original co-sponsor of the bill to repeal and throw his full weight as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee behind Senate passage. In the end, it was Lieberman who secured the support of Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) on the final critical cloture vote without which repeal would have gone up in smoke, and it was Lieberman who convinced her to join him in mid-December to put in a standalone repeal bill to keep the process alive and momentum going in the Senate.

Anyone who followed this debate closely knows that without Senator Lieberman's determination and hard work the bill would not have passed the Senate by a 65-31 vote on December 18. It was Senator Lieberman who was on the phone with Secretary Gates in the final weeks and days, and it was President Obama, Gates, and Mullen during the final weeks urging senators to vote for repeal. Eight of those critical votes were Republican. Without those Republican votes, without Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen imploring the Senate to act, there would have been no bill for President Obama to sign on December 22.

This was not an easy fight. Three cloture votes, two of which took place in the lame-duck session. A determined opposition that would not step aside until it was obvious there were more than 60 votes to proceed and win. It should be apparent to all that this battle would not have been won in the Senate without Republican support. Ted Kennedy realized that years ago. He knew that Joe Lieberman could be the bridge to wavering senators on the other side of the aisle.

Even Senator Lieberman's fiercest critics would surely agree that this historical victory in the Senate would not have happened without him -- or Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Committee Chairman Carl Levin. A victory of this magnitude was truly the work of several courageous senators.

But in the end, Senate repeal of this discriminatory law is an important civil rights victory for which Joe Lieberman deserves enormous credit. Surely Ted Kennedy would have been among the first to acknowledge that fact. I don't think we would have won without Joe Lieberman. Now that he has announced his retirement, I will be sorry to see him go.

Outrage Is Overdue

2010-09-23T13:45:32-04:00

Let's call Tuesday's pitifully embarrassing Senate performance on the defense authorization bill exactly what it was: shameful. They blocked debate because the bill included repeal of the federally imposed ban on gays in the military, a repeal the American people overwhelmingly support. I'm outraged that the Senate used gay and lesbian service members as political pawns.

There's plenty of blame to go around but at the end of the day it comes down to the fact that 43 senators voted to keep this disgraceful ban in place.

Why wasn't the White House lobbying senators for the vote? What happened to "the fierce urgency of now"? From the get go the White House didn't want a vote on the ban until after the midterm elections. They miscalculated how much support nationwide there was for repeal and now they and some of the senators are stumbling over their own timeline. After Tuesday's setback, and some stunning primary results, the political dynamics have changed. It's by no means certain we're going to get another shot in the lame-duck session in December.

While finger pointing is unlikely to serve any constructive purpose, some plain old-fashioned outrage is very much in order. If you don't speak up when both your political allies and opponents do a number on you, one thing is certain: they will do it again. The nation's gay and lesbian troops were expendable in the eyes of the 43 senators who voted against repeal. They thought there would be no price to pay, that we would understand it was only politics and not about the real lives of patriotic service members.

Minorities are used to putting up with benevolent politicians telling us to be patient, the right time will come. No longer. Gay men and women within the military and outside the military won't continue putting up with this same old, same old. What if 10,000 of the 65,000 gays and lesbians now on active duty decided in December they had had enough? What kind of impact would that have on military readiness and morale?

Senator Susan Collins (R-Me) made it clear that she takes her advice on military matters from Secretary Robert Gates and JCS Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, not from Lady Gaga. Fine, but both made it clear in testimony before her that they had set a course to make this change, and under the proposal before the Senate there would be no repeal until they, along with the President, signed off on it. Nonetheless, Senator Collins voted against proceeding to debate the same bill she voted for in committee. It was a painful, contorted vote and obviously not from her heart.

And how does Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) explain her vote? She was on record for repeal before she voted against it Tuesday. The timing was all. She's up for re-election, she's way behind, and apparently she thinks casting a vote that might be considered controversial back home could cost her votes. Is Arkansas so different from the rest of the country? Do most people there believe it's OK to allow this kind of blatant discrimination to continue?

The failure in the Senate is not likely to be set right until the two leaders, Harry Reid (D-Nev) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), feel they need to reach an agreement on how the debate should proceed. Tuesday senators went at it and the resulting free-for-all wasn't pretty. Minority Leader McConnell showed he could keep his caucus of 41 united even if it meant that senators like Susan Collins and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) had to go against what they had previously supported. The two senators from Arkansas looked like they were caught in a time warp from another era voting against 1960's civil rights legislation.

And then there was Senator McCain whose decision to filibuster brought about this whole contretemps. Anyone who saw his incoherent ranting Tuesday can only wonder why.

The damage has been done; the Senate impasse continues. Only when the Majority and Minority Leaders decide they don't want to preside over the first Senate to fail to pass a bill for our nation's defense in almost 50 years, and the White House makes it clear that repeal this year is a priority for the President, will the damage be repaired.

None of us should forget that every day this law remains in place patriotic men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us all are being discriminated against by their own government.

Our troops deserve better from their leaders.

AUBREY SARVIS, U.S. Army veteran and executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was formerly chief counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee and later executive vice president for public policy and legislative affairs at Bell Atlantic/Verizon Communications.

Senator McCain Is Out of Step on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

2010-04-13T08:00:33-04:00

While sitting down with the Arizona Daily Star editorial board, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who has consistently argued that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is working -- was pressed on whether he had considered asking gay service members for their opinion: "I don't seek out someone who is gay... The policy is one that has worked by the opinion of their commanders."

As a veteran, and having spoken with many of the men and women who have served and want to serve their country openly, I can tell you McCain's words and actions on this topic are out of step and from a bygone era. His view does not represent the American people or our country's military leadership. As shown in the interview transcript, McCain continues to ignore the fact that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, General Collin Powell and Vice President Richard Cheney all strongly favor repeal.

The senator's continued opposition underscores a clear record of hypocrisy on repeal. In October 2006, McCain said to an audience of Iowa State University students that he would at least consider repeal if the top brass came out in favor of doing so: "The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it." And on February 2, 2010, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen did exactly that when they testified before McCain and the full Senate Armed Services Committee in support of repeal.

The senator's response? Not interested.

When the Star editors pressed McCain, asking if there had been a "generational shift" in favor of repeal, McCain quipped "...how many times do I have to give you my opinion?" After a pause on both sides, the senator said: "Go ahead. I'm ready. I'm ready. I'm ready. I'm ready. I'm ready to continue our conversation on it. Okay. Seriously. Go ahead."

Repealing DADT is no longer a question of "if," but "when."

We are at a critical hour in the repeal of DADT. Much has changed since Sen. McCain voted in favor of the law in 1993. Those who have previously supported "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," including both former Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili and General Colin Powell -- who also helped write the law -- are now in favor of repeal. More and more Americans, regardless of party identity or ideological persuasion, understand that DADT should go.

Sen. McCain would be better served reviewing the transcript from the first hearing on repeal held by the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. In his testimony, Admiral Mullen made it clear that DADT does not serve in the best interest of our men and women in uniform: "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity - theirs as individuals and ours as a nation."

As Congress begins to take action on the Defense Department budget, we must continue the work to muster the 15 critical votes needed on the Senate Armed Services Committee to include repeal. With strong support in favor of ending the ban on open service, we can show John McCain that his outdated position is simply a sign of the past.